Findings : Both print and broadcast media were more likely to present views supportive of animal experimentation (print 2.9 times more likely and broadcast 1.4 times more likely). Quotations that expressed support for animal experimentation (used in both print and broadcast media) were more frequently presented as coming from a professional or expert (1.5 times more likely in print media and 6.5 times more likely in broadcast media). Opposing viewpoints were not usually attributed to professionals or experts. The authors state that this unequal distribution could be due to the fact that a majority of people who speak out in favor of animal experimentation are doctors or researchers.

The authors claim that the media representation of supporters (as predominantly professional) and opponents (as predominantly nonprofessional) may impact the public's attitude toward animal experimentation, but they acquiesce that there are many other factors that influence public attitudes. The authors suggest continued research on media influence, particularly in light of the idea that animal rights groups may become further stigmatized in the future.

Sample/population sampled : Print articles examined were taken from Time , Newsweek , and U.S. News and World Report between 1984 and 1993 (all focused on animal experimentation). This sample consisted of 26 articles with 90 quotations that expressed the speaker's opinion on animal experimentation. In terms of the broadcast media, the researchers examined all news stories focusing on animal experimentation aired on three major U.S. television networks between 1984 and 1993 (p. 237). This sample consisted of 31 news stories with 62 quotations that expressed a particular stance on the animal experimentation debate.